Hidalgo Guarantee Abstract Co. v. City of Edinburg, 4364.

• Decision Date: 16 March 1944
• Docket Number: No. 4364.,4364.
• Citation: 181 S.W.2d 597
• Parties: HIDALGO GUARANTEE ABSTRACT CO. v. CITY OF EDINBURG.
• Court: Texas Court of Appeals

181 S.W.2d 597

HIDALGO GUARANTEE ABSTRACT CO. v. CITY OF EDINBURG.

No. 4364.

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas. El Paso.

March 16, 1944.

Rehearing Denied April 6, 1944.

Appeal from District Court Hidalgo County; Bryce Ferguson, Judge.

Suit by State of Texas in its own behalf and others against Hidalgo Guarantee Abstract Company to collect delinquent taxes alleged to be due plaintiffs by defendant. The City of Edinburg and another intervened. From an order overruling defendant's motion to set aside a judgment for the City of Edinburg and grant a new trial, defendant appeals.

Affirmed.

Sawnie B. Smith, of Edinburg (Stewart, Burgess & Morris, of Houston, of counsel), for appellant.

Bert E. Derden and W. Carloss Morris, Jr., both of Houston, for amicus curiae.

Jones, Hardie, Grambling & Howell, of El Paso, for appellant, on rehearing only.

Albert W. Taylor, City Atty., formerly of Edinburg, now of McAllen, for appellee.

McGILL, Justice.

This appeal is from an order of the District Court of Hidalgo County Ninety-third Judicial District, overruling a motion of appellant, Hidalgo Guarantee Abstract Company, to set aside a judgment rendered by that Court on March 24, 1943, and to grant appellant a new trial. The judgment was rendered in a suit instituted by the State of Texas in behalf of itself, Hidalgo County, and other taxing units, to collect delinquent taxes alleged to be due them by appellant. The City of Edinburg and Edinburg Consolidated Independent School District filed pleas of intervention in which they sought to collect from appellant delinquent taxes alleged to be due them. Trial was to the Court, and in its judgment the Court found that all taxes due the State and County for the years sued for had been paid in full, and dismissed the cause of action asserted by them with prejudice. Judgment was rendered in favor of the City of Edinburg against appellant for "taxes, penalty and interest" for the years 1932 to 1942, inclusive, in the sum of $706.33, for taxes due "upon abstract office and all equipment pertaining thereto, including abstract cards, card systems, books, records and furniture and fixtures of Hidalgo Guarantee Abstract Company located in Edinburg, Hidalgo County," fixing and foreclosing a lien against such personal property and providing for order of sale. Judgment was also rendered in favor of the School District, but it appears from appellant's brief that the controversy between appellant and the School District has been settled and that the City of Edinburg is the only party interested as appellee.

The sole point presented by appellant is that its abstract cards and card systems are not subject to taxation under the Constitution and laws of this State, and for this reason the court erred in overruling its motion.

The question presented is one of first impression in this State so far as we have been able to find. The cards and card systems here involved consist of the following: Each day from the instruments filed in the county Clerk's office there is checked off on a card the names of the grantor and grantee, description of the property affected, the date of filing, and either the registration number or the book and page where such instrument may be found. These cards are assembled and grouped together according to the particular tract of land affected. They are used as a guide to the places in the public records where the instruments may be found and copied in making up abstracts which are furnished for compensation to those desiring them.

In determining whether these cards and card systems are subject to taxation, we can discern no material distinction between them and the "abstract books" held not to be taxable in Perry v. City of Big Rapids, 67 Mich. 146, 34 N.W. 530, 11 Am.St.Rep. 570; Loomis v. City of Jackson, 130 Mich. 594, 90 N.W. 328, and Bay Trust Company v. Bay City, 280 Mich. 44, 273 N.W. 437, and the "abstract books" held to be taxable in Leon Loan & Abstract Co. v. Equalization Board, 86 Iowa 127, 53 N.W. 94, 17 L.R.A. 199, 41 Am.St.Rep. 486, "the abstract books" containing information "largely in the form of abbreviations and cipher" and understood by only five persons, held to be taxable in Booth & Hanford Abstract Co. v. Phelps, 8 Wash. 549, 36 P. 489, 23 L.R.A. 864, 40 Am.St.Rep. 921, and the "abstract plant" consisting of "abstracts of title to real property in Ramsey county, taken from the official public records and assembled in books with copious indexes," held to be taxable in State v. St. Paul Abstract Co., 158 Minn. 95, 196 N.W. 932, 933.

Of course, the fact that in Leon Loan & Abstract Co. v. Equalization Board (Iowa), supra, the original records of the Recorder's Office had been destroyed might materially enhance the value of the abstract books there involved, and the fact that the abbreviations and cipher contained in the books involved in State v. St. Paul Abstract Co. (Minn.), supra, were known only to five persons, might materially diminish their value; but these considerations can have no...